I believe Holder's intentions are good, but he is dead wrong. Attorneys
General swear an oath to defend the laws in their given jurisdiction. It is not
the Attorney General's prerogative to determine the constitutionality of a
law. That belongs to the courts (i.e. a judge). If Holder is correct, which he
is not, by failing to uphold laws on the record book, an Attorney General can
preemptively strike down a law, leaving no recourse to appeal a lawsuit (e.g.
Prop 8--the Court essentially sided with the plaintiffs when no one with
"legal standing" kept their oath of office).Even though
Holder indicates that such decisions should not be taken lightly, his argument
leaves the door wide open for corruption and political favoritism. Regardless of
whether people believe a law is constitutional or not, they should adamantly
reject the idea that an Attorney General has the power to veto laws that he
What Eric Holder doesn't seem to understand is that his position, as an
Attorney General, is to uphold existing laws. There is no prerogative built into
his job description which allows him to decide which laws to uphold and which
ones to ignore. He isn't allowed to just pick and choose at his leisure.
The legislative branch of government creates laws. The judicial
branch helps in determining constitutionality of laws. An attorney
general's job is to enforce those laws. It's a check and balance
system that works well and really isn't so complicated. When any branch of
government oversteps their established bounds, that balance becomes jeopardized.
Mr Holder is in danger of doing just that.
Of course Holder, and the Democrats by extension, think that capricious rule of
men instead of rule of law is good. The entire gay marriage movement rests
practically completely on judges issuing decrees. Obama ignores and rewrites
laws to suit his every imperial whim, with no authority. Citizens who try to
stop it don't have standing. So, instead of government of the people, by
the people, we have government of the elite leftists, by the elite leftists,
and no one can challenge it.
Dems. SHOULD BE more than a little concerned about Holder (and the rest of the
Obama regime)insofar as:"What goes around comes around"
HA!! So I guess this means those state AD's who oppose abortion don't
have to uphold it anymore because it obviously discriminates against the right
of a child to LIVE!! Every AD can just enforce what he wants or doesn't
want. Sounds like this fits perfectly with the new "ignore the
constitution" government of Obama. Anymore - you don't know whether to
laugh or cry over the sorry state of this county.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal."Or,
"Your stinking laws don't apply to ME!"Basically, any
law that Obama or Holder disagree with, they just ignore, and with a stroke of a
pen and a phone call the will of the people, and the deliberated actions of
legislative bodies are overturned.The saddest part is that Holder is
sworn to uphold and enforce the laws, but he is in the forefront of ignoring,
and in the case of "Fast and Furious" actually breaking the laws.We are becoming a nation of anarchy with the "rule of law" being
ruthlessly eliminated, not by raging mobs in the streets, but by elected
officials in government offices.I weep for my country and what it
US Constitution, Article VI, clause 2, "This Constitution, and the Laws of
the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."State Constitutions affirm the federal
Constitution as supreme law of the land.Officers of the Judiciary -
including state's AG's - take an oath to uphold the Constitution of
the US and their respective states.The question then becomes when
you have valid, legal reason to support that defending a state
law/constitutional amendment would violate your oath to uphold the federal
Constitution, what do you do - which part of your oath do you violate, the state
constitution or the federal Constitution?If the federal Constitution
is truly the supreme law of the land, it has the higher priority and therefore
must be defended first. If a state AG can defend both the state
law/constitution and the federal Constitution, than he/she must obviously do so
- but if there is a conflict such that only one can be defended, the federal
Constitution is supreme.
State AG's don't have to defend state laws that are not consistent
with the [US} Constitution. But that's the whole question! Nothing like
assuming what you are trying to prove and then starting out there to make your
case. Or to echo what an earlier commentator said, "Four legs good, two
legs betters!" Where is George Orwell now that we really need him? Looking
down with a sardonic smile, is my guess.
If Holder thinks laws that are unconstitutional do not have to be denfended, why
does he (and all the lefties) defend blatantly discriminatory affirmative action
laws and race-based admissions programs?